The Sun. — London, England, 1826-06-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. VIM CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jurrx 29. CLASSINGTON C. THWAITEI, Mr. Rourm 'moved, an behalf of the plaintiff, that the an swer and disclaimer of Mr. Philip', one of the defendants in the cause, betaken off the file. Mr. AGAR, on the other side objected in limine to the mo tion, on the ground that it had already bon made, and refused by his Honour, with costs. Mr. Rouritra said, that tiros and circumstances might alter the grounds on which it was made. The suit had been origi nally instituted by Mr. Glarsington, a part proprietor of the Morainti Herald newspaper, for an account against several dt fondants, who were joint proprietors of that establishment. In the progress of the cause one of them assigned his interest to Mr. Philips; in consequence of which it became necessary to file an amended bill, to which Mr. Philips appeared, and put in what he called an answer and disclaimer, but which was, in point of fact, no answer, but merely a dry disclaimer. Exceptions, however, Were taken to it as an answer, end it was referred to the Master to look into them. Ths Master reported, that be could sot look into the exceptions to the answer, for that there was no newer upon the file, a mere disclaimer not being an answer. This re port of the Master'a was excepted to by the plaintiff, and the ex ceptions Set down for hearing; but upon consideration, the plain tiff 's advisers thought it prudent to wave the exceptions, which were accordingly taken off the file. They then applied to the Court for an order, calling upon the defendant to put in an an swer in a reasonable time, but the Court thought that was not the proper course to pursue; and they therefor. now applied to have the disclaimer taken off the file. The Vlca-Citatectuna said, there was no such thing as a disclaimer ; it was an answer, and he therefore thought it unfor tunate that they did not persevere in their exceptions to the Mas ter's report. A disclaimer would not protect a party from an swering, unless he not only disclaimed having any present inte rest, but also having ever had interest in the property in ques tion. He cthe Vice-Chancellor) was of opinion that the Master had been mistaken in his report. Mr. Roumt, thought that in that cue the disclaimer ought to be ordered to be taken off the file. The VICX-CHANCILLOR could not do that, Mr. Rover=s, cited several eases, to show that where an eve. lion bad been resorted to, the Court bad ordered it to L•e taken off the file. The Vzot-CwAnzttoe. said, that this tnlght be mistake, and not 01111013. The best course for the plaintiff to adopt would be, to apply for liberty to refills the exception,. 'IC.XIORT asked for tbut arder.now. The VICZ-C3SANCSK.LOI4 could not grunt :such an order with out a formal application. He thought the lfaster's opinion was erroneous. MAX observed, that his Honour had not hear) what the defendant's case wu. The Vor-Cirsuctuon said no ; all he stated now was, that the plaintiff might have had redress, by pi oceeding with the ex ceptions. Mr. ROVtILL said, he knew a cast in which Lord Eldon him self had put in an answer and disclaimer in a suit in which his Lordship was made defendant, and be (Mr. Roupell) assisted in settling it. Mr: APAR applied for the costs of this motion. They had made the same motion before, and it had been refused with costs. Mr. XXICHT said, that when the former motion was made, the exceptions were then on the file, The VICE.CICA.NCEI.T.OI. observed, that that 'altered the case materially ; because. now, having withdrawn their exceptions, they came forward supported by the Master's report. however, being of opinion that that report was wrung, he would refuse the motion, but without costs. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, „lulu; it 41.144pA11t V. KLMILIC AK) OTHIMS. panenoet opened the pleadings. This was an action brought by. the plaintiff to recover from the defendants a cow perisetion in damages, in bonsequence of their having violated a contract which they had entered into with him : the defendants had pleaded that they were not liable, and thereupon isms was joined. The ATTOttlirr*UliNIRAL stated the case to the jury. The plaintiff, in this case, (the celebrated singer) was under the ne cessity of bringing this action against the defendants, the manners ' and proprietors of Covent %antra Theatre, to recover from them anemepensatinn in damages Vor the lose he had sustained, in come- SUMO of their refusing en (11141 their engagement with him. In the year 1828,,the plaintiff was residing in Italy, when an app. cetion wee made to him, no the part of the defendant*, to perform at Covent Garden Theatre during tbe follareing .season. That arrangement was ooncluilittiliy a Bettor • from Mr. XoOtkolo to the plaintiff, dated the (30th of January, wherein he stated that the committee of roanageroent bad acceded to Mr. Sinclair's terms, via. 201. per night for 40 nights, with a benefit, leave of absence at Christmas and taster, and liberty to sing at concerts and ora torios, when not interfering with the theatrical arrangements...— In consequence of this engagement, Mr. iiinclair came to this country at the elan of the month of September, to be in attend ance when required, but he was not celled upon to perform till the 19th of November, when be continued ea perform the forty iv. nights; at the expiration of that time he went to Dublin, sacrificing the remaining lye nights, and the salary attached to them. While there, the defindants being desirous of en gaging hint for the following sewn, he received a letter from Mr. Fawcett; the stage manager, and it was out of that letter that the =treat arose which the defendants were now charged with the breach of. The letter stated that he (Mr. Fawcett) had received front Mr. Trotter (Mr. Sinclair's father-in-law) thetertne *you which Mr. Sinclair would engefe for the following season. Those term were the same as thole of the limner year, end were acceded to the season to commence at the latter end of Sept., and Mr. Sinclair to be in attendance—" my the first week in October," when a new opera would be brought out. To this Mr. Sinclair replied, by stating be should consider himself en gaged for the following seem ; and while in Scotland, in Sept. 1924, ho received from Mr, Fawcett a letter, calling on hint to say on what day it would be convenient for him to he in London: to this he returned for answer that it would not be convenient for hint to be in London before the lOth of October; and hear ing nothing further on the subject, he concluded that time would do: lie arrived in London on the loth of October, and what was his surprise to find that the opera of Der Freisclattr bed been brought out, and that a very respectable gentlemen of the name of Peartrillin had been employed to represent that cha racter which the plaintiff had been given to understand he was to perform. On the Sd of November he received the usual call to attend a rehearsal, and en application from Mr. Few nett, requesting to know what character he would choose to appear in. MI. Sinclair selected that of Prince Orlando, in the opera of the Cabinet, and be appeared in that character six or seven times, pereuent to his engagement ; and in the month of June Mr. Arnold, of the Lyceum Theatre, proposed to en gage Mr. Sinclair fee the !summer season to perform three nights a week at SOL per night, and to receive 401, if he per. formed a tburth night. Tide edvaritegeoes proposal Mr. Sin clair accepted, provided it received the 'auction of the proprietors of Covent Carden Theatre, without whose consent I+,lr. Sin clair did not consider himself at liherte to ratify null an en gaetenent. In consequence of this 1)1, Niteiiceer waited spun Mr. Charles Remble to obtain hoe permission, .;hen that gent;ernan said lie was very sorry, but 1 e could not per mit Mr. Sinclair to engage with Mr. Arnold, as he expected a new opera and an oratorio, which that highlygifted com poser Von Wither (whose premature death every lover of music Must lament) had engaged to prepare for Covent-garden Theatre. The opera was subsequently produced, and after two or three nights' ensuccesiful performances was drawn. Mr. Sinclair was; only nelled in to perform nine nights dui ing the season, in stead of f i fty, but Inc was in attendance during the whole of the season as required by his eneagement, and it is therefore for the jury to say whether, uniler these circumstances, he is not entitled to receive the full benefit of hie contract, the same as if be bad performed the fifty night* that had been stipu lated for. The different lettere having been read, Dr. titcheeer, e xamined y the ATTORlirkv-Giszits.L.-lani not a doctor of tomtit, hut of medicine. lam acquainted with Mr. Arnold kid Mr. Sinclair. In the nennib of January, 1925, Mr. Arnold was desirous of entering into ..n engagement with Mr , Sinclair for the tummer reason. In ray opinion the terms nropoted were very advantageous to Mr. Sineleir. In c o m e `ehce of Mr. Arnold's o ff er, I waited no 111 r. C. 'Kete v um". if the of Covent-garden Theatre would M. Kembl in re mr, s:qclair t o acce p t of that l en g agement. , ,au r id not allow , him to said , hat be vial v e r y terry , b ut be ply' go to ,111%, o ld, as they were in daily exp ectation of a new 1 21 : 1 ( tin t , ill which they should wan t him to p erform. 1 nieces ; .1 t } • p laintiff , in c ooler of which he cnmm unicateel this Co '"1" declined Mr. .krnold'" On''''' f a d mit that Mr. Sinclair pesformed nine Mr. Sceltinerrsen - nights. :1m...Ad1 admit that he received 20/. The ATIOIXTY.CitttIA The defendants were &leo etl per night for the nine nights , of witted to be the proprietors and nira la g t " C° " 11140116n Theatre, and Mr. F awcett to have b een the etage-manager at the period in question. , -144 5C40247411 with WhOM Wu Mr, B I NCIMAL, .ml, ureairifi I the jury for the defendants, observed, that although Mr. Sinclair considered he had fulfilled his part of the contract, it would be shown by the evidence that it was he alone who had failed to fulfil his engagement, and that in consequence of the incon , venience to which the defendants had been subjected by hie not ;arriving in London in time to study the difficult music of the Opera which they had engaged to produce to the public, they had been under the necessity of supplying his place with another performer; and it would be also shown, that I immediately after his arrival in London, he was by the defendants apprised that the engagement they had entered into with him was at an end, in consequence of his having delayed his ar rival in London to so late a period after the commencement of the season. He (Mr. Scarlett) had nn doubt that this error had arisen from misapprehending the terms of the contract, and was not intentional; but nevertheless the plaintiff was not now entitled to avail himself of that contract which had long since ceased, and ceased through inattention to it. John Fawcett examined by Mr. Bletostese.—l was the stage manager of Covent-garden Theatre for the seasons of 1824 and 1825. The performances commenced on Monday the 27th of September. On the 14th of October the opera of .Der Freirehutz was performed. We began to rehearse that opera almost as soon as tlas theatre opened for the season,-:-u soon as we could get our performers together. The principal character in that opera (Wilhelm) was destined for Mr. Sinclair. That character was performed by Mr. Pearman, in 'consequence of Mr. Sinclair not arriving in time. The opera was performed upwards of 50 nights. I don't know on what day the plaintiff arrived, but I saw him a few days after his arrival ; it was after Der Freisautz was performed. The moment we met we talked of the engagement. 1 told him bow he bed distressed us—he said it did nut appear so, as neither the part or music was fit for him. He asked me by letter to fix the night for his benefit. I received that letter two months be fore the close of our season, and, by hie request, I fixed his benefit to take place on the 25th of May, the last night of his perform since. We never called him on behalf of the theatre to perform after that night. Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-C6245kAL.....1 don't remem ber having any conversation with Mr. Pearman previous to the 21st of September about his taking the principal character in the opera of Der Frei:auto. He had performed that character so often at the Lyceum, that he was quite au fait at it. The managers did not determine that he should take that part until they ascer tained that it was impossible for Mr. Sinclair to arrive in time to study the part, after receiving Mr. Sinelair'a letter, stating that he could not be in London before the 15th of October. 1 did not write to him again after the receipt of this litter. We calculated the possibility and probability of his arriving in time to study his part sufficiently to enable us to get the opera out before the end of October. We then considered it would require a week to study the music, and it was only then determined that Mr. Pearman should perform the part. We were very anxious to have had Mr. Sinclair. The opera had been announced as forthcoming in our first bill of the 27th of September. Mr. Robinson, treasurer of Covent-garden Theatre-1 saw Mr. Sinclair at my office shortly after he came to town in October. The Opera of. Der Frieschutz bad then been perform ed. I was present at an interview he had with Mr. Charles Kemble, and Captain Forbes. Mr. Kemble said, that in cones ' quence of Mr. Sinclair not having arrived at the time he was expected, their engagement with him was at an end, and they would not undertake to employ him for b 0 nights, but were willing to employ him as many nights during the season as they might be able; and if he was disposed to accede to that proposition, they would give him all the employ in their power. I don't remember anything being said about terms; that propo sal was acceded to by Mr. Sinclair, and there was nothing said about his benefit during the course of the season. I conversed several time. with Mr. Sinclair on the subject. Once he expres sed his regret at his folly in not coming to town, having received only 1801., a sum less than he bad ever received. He was paid $Ol. per night for the night. he performed. Cross examined by the ATTORPEY^GINERAL.—Captain Forbes was at that time a proprietor of the theatre. The principal per formers are always engaged by letter. or by printed forms.— There are some exceptions, I believe Mr. Fawcett is one. The plaintiff complained that he was not employed. A new Opera (IMO out, which was unsuccessful. We expected one of %bete. Der Freisehutz wet the favourite opera of the season. Mr. Alexander Olivier remembered Mr. Sinclair, on the oc casion of his benefit taking place, saying that he regretted very much he had not been up in time to fulfil hie engagement; and not only on account of his having received so small an income by way of salary, but on account of his having beenso seldom before the public. The Arronuse-IQenas.4.l,. for the plaintiff. stood, Ihiat on a. renew of the facts of the cue, be considered he ehrrithl be entitled to their verdict. In the letter, try which 'Mr. Kinds& was en gaged, it was stated that he would he *squired to be in attendance early in October, the expression was—" say the first week," which was generally understood to mean somewhere about that period, without reference to any day in particular. Mr. Fawcett then wrote to Mr. Sinclair to inquire at what time it would be convenient for him to be in London ; lie does not say, in reference to your engagement, we require you to be in attendance by a cer tain day,—he merely inquired when it would be convenient for him to attend ; and by the return of post, Mr. Sinclair replied, that, in consequence of an engagement he had made, he should not he able to arrive in town before the 16th of October, and as no answer bad been sent to that intimation, be bad not the slightest reason to understand that he would be wanted before that day, the question having been put to him as a mere matter of convenience. If the subsequent arrangement had been entered into which was mentioned by the witness, Mr. Robinson, was there any thing, to bind either party? Was there any engagement on the part of the Managers to employ Mr. Sinclair, except when it might suit their convenience? Was there any thing, there fore„, to prevent Mr. Sinclair from entering into any other engagement? Then how was it possible to reconcile this with the fact of Mr. Sinclair having refused Mr Arnold's offer, in conse quence of his considering himself engaged to the managers of Covent-garden Theatre, and with the fact of Mr. Kemple having refused to Dr. Kitchener to allow Mr. Sinclair to accept of that engagement ? The conduct of the parties themselves is sufficient to prove, that they considered the engagement as not at an end ; and as they had each of them to a certain extent availed themselves of it, the jury will decide, whether the defendants are not bound by that contract, and the plaintiff, consequently, entitled to recover. The Loan Cuter Justus having recapitulated the evidence, stated it as his opinion, that if the defendants had required Mr. Sinclair's attendance before the Ibth of October, they were bound to have informed him of it. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff —Damages 420/. ROBINSON V. CI,EIIYNT. This was an action by the plaintiff, who is an attorney of the Court of King's Bench, to recover from the defendant, the pro prietor and publisher of the Morning Chronicle, The English man, and The Observer newspapers, a compensation in damages, fur an injury sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the de fendant having published in those newspapers on the 28d and 24th of Or,:tober, 1824, libels reflecting on the plaintiff's professional character, Mr. Gusher, in addressing the jury for the plaintiff, stated, • that they hail already heard from his learned friend who opened the pleadings, that the libel complained of by the plaintiff had ap peared in what purported to be a report of a trial which had taken pine at Guildhall before the Lord Chief Justice. It was en action for a libel, brought by the plaintiff at the suit of a person named Rebeck v. Knight, the editor and proprietor of a newspaper called the Windsor and Eton Express. No one could doubt the importance and utility of publishing reports of the proceedings in courts of justice, but to have those reports useful or im portant they should be impartial, and not published for the promotion of any sinister purpose, or for the gratification of private malice. if an individual reporting . for a news paper was influenced by private malice against a person appeariug in any shape in a court of justice, it was impossible to adopt a more convenient or effectual mode of blackening the cha racter of the person against whom he might entertain such feel ings of hostility, than by misrepresenting what passed during . the trial of any action in which that person might appear; and by way of apology for such conduct, the defendant should this day state who the reporter was, he (Mr. Gurney) was instructed to state that he should be able to prove that the reporter bad been influenced by feelings of private malice towards the plaintiff, and that he would prove it from his own mouth if they dared to pro duce him. The libel of which the plaintiff now complained was contained in these words..--" CJ,uct of King's v. Knight.--This was a paltry action, brought by an attorney, J. W. Robinson, of Clement's-inn, on the part oft poor cow-feeder and Pig -driver residing at Windsor, to recover from the defend ant comperniation in damages for the injury done to the character and honour of the said pig -driver, by publishing a libel in the de fi!ndant's newspaper, the 'Windsor and Eton Express." The libel went on to detail what purported to be a report of the °Wet s:hens of coU nae l and the ev i dence, and conclude d b y stati ng that the case went to the jury, when, after a strong charge from the Judge , the jury f o U n d a ver di ct f or the plaintiff—Aaron", SC/I ' trial le arned to tacit, the. greatest contempt, anti the verdict was received with surpri se and dissatisfaction." That the repor ter was not justified i n tie i ng the words, "paltry, dissatisfaction," there was no d ou b t b y the verdict f and that such an imputation tlawas cast on the plaintiff's charge contempt, o f t he d jury, an ter by this repo/1A(44 not bt prejudicial to a afessi°llll man was quite clear : the plaintiff therefore was under the a/cu shy of seeking in this court a reparation at the hands of a jury of his countrymen for the injury he had sustained. The libel and judgment in the action of " Rebeck v. Knight" having been read, and the defendant proved to be proprietor of the newspaper in question in the usual way, . _ The ATioriNxv-Gertram., for the defendant, addressed the jury, and stated that his learned friend (Mr. Gurney) had in his opening assumed that the report which was the subject of the present action was incorrect, but he was surprised that to esta blish that position his learned friend bad not produced one tittle of evidence. The jury were therefore bound to take it for granted that the report was a correct account of what took place on the trial. That the elitor of a newspaper had a right to publish a correct account of what passed in a court of justice no man could doubt ; indeed, if that right had not been acknowledged on All hands, some of the most splendid effusions of eloquence could not have been handed down to posterity, and yet effusions bitter in invective. The editors of newspapers, in publishing the speeches of the most distinguished advocates that had ever ap peared in England (he meant the late Lord Erskine and Mr. Cur ran), had published the bitterest invectives, pronounced in the most eloquent language, against parties upon whom they would not fail to make the deepest and most painful impressions; . but no person had ever thought of bringing such actions against the publishers of those speeches. He had read this alleged libel, and must confess that he could not discover in it any passage which could he construed into a libel for which the defendant ought to be called to answer iu an action for damages. The pas sages reflecting upon the plaintiff were contained in the speech of his learned friend, Mr. Scarlett, to the jury; it was those passages on which the plaintiff seemed to rely in his declaration. His learned friend was representei to have stated that the action was a paltry one, brought by the attorney for the purpose of put ting costs into his own pocket. If Mr. Sc,arlett had not made use of those expressions, the plaintiff ought to have produced evi dence to that effect ; but if the Learned Counsel had used those words, the defendant was justified in publishing them. Ile would now direct the attention of the Jury to,the allegations contained in the plaintiff's declaration. He there states that he has always been distinguished for the integrity of his professional conduct, and had never been distinguished for bringing paltry actions for the sake of costs, or for any improper motives. Of the truth of that alle gation the Jury would judge when he should lay before them evi dence, that the plaintiff had for the alleged libels, which were the grounds of the present action, brought actions in his own name, and in Rebeck's name, against the Morning Herald, the Morning Post, the British Press, end the Morning Advertiser news papers. If the object of the plaintiff was to justify his conduct, and not to increase his costa, would he not have been satisfied with an action against the defendant in whose newspaper the alleged libels had been first published ? The plaintiff was well aware that in an action for libel a verdict for any damages would carry full costs ; and therefore if an attorney could get eight or ten ver dicts, ha would put into his pocket a considerable sum of money in the shape of costs. Such conduct plainly proved what the plaintiff's object was. The Learned Counsel then concluded by expressing his firm opinion that the Jury would concur with him in considering the report a true account of the proceedings, and that therefore the defendant would be entitled to their verdict. Joseph Sligh proved settling the damages and costs with the defendant in a similar action, at the suit of " Rebeck v. the pro prietors of the Morning Post newspaper." He paid the plaintiff 60/., .for which the plaintiff gave the receipt now produced. Samuel Monkhouse, clerk to the attorney for the British Press newspaper, proved that the plaintiff brought two separate actions (one now pending) against the proprietor of that paper. Wm. Ashford, clerk to the attorney of the proprietors of the Morning Herald newspaper, swore that the plaintiff bad institut ed two similar actions against the proprietors of that paper. The reporter to the Morning Chronicle being, by Mr. SCAR LXTT, asked whether the report was a true one, Mr. GUMMY objected to the question. If the defendant had intended to offer evidence to that effect, he ought to have pleaded a justification. The Loan Ciller Jusuct was of opinion that the question could not be put. Mr. Whitelock, the defendant's attorney, proved th►t besides this action the plaintiff was attorney to Rebeck in another action against the defendant for having published this libel. Notice of trial had been given of Rebeck's trial. Mr. Knight, son of the proprietor pt' the Windsor paper, proved that the plaintiff had brought two actions against his father at the suit of Rebeck, and received from him 1171. I os. damages and costs. Mr. °IMAMY, in reply, contended, that there had been no , ovidenae offered ore thee. part ref the defendant to entitle him to the verdict of a Jury. He denied the doctrine Laid down by hie FLiewned Friend case Attorneir-General), that the Editor of a newspaper had a right to publish every thing that took place in a Court of Justice; it was sometimes requisite to enter into the most disgusting details, which it would be highly improper to publish in any way. Re was willing to admit generally that editors were justified in publishing what occurred in Courts of Justice; but in so doing they must be careful that they did not publish any statement of Counsel, or any evidence, which would affect the character or reputation of individuals, without at the same time publishing the answer given by such parties in justifi cation of their character. Editors must be careful that when they exhibited the poison to the public, they at the same time presented them with the antidote. TIIF LORD Can?' JIIATICt, after summing up the evidence, ob served that the law, as stated by the Learned Comae( (Mr. Gur ney) did not in all cases permit the proceedings of Courts of Jus tice to be given to the world. In this case the only question to which the Jury would have to direct their attention was, whether they considered this publication to be a libel on the character of the plaintiff, and whether it was an injury to hie professional character. If they were of that opinion, be would be entitled to their verdict ; and the amount of damages was a question entirely for their consideration. The ) - ury,aftir a very short consultation, returned a verdict for the defendant. Tilt EARL Of VCIRVIMOUTIS, BY 111% MAI74I'IIIIE, AGAIN%t MARY ANN HANSON, TAL•3II" CALLING filfltAILIV COLTNTICAS FORTSIIOIIrif. Dr. LUSHINCVM informed the Court, that application, by petition, bad been made, as suggested, to the Lord Chancellor i n this case, whose order he would communicate ; first stating the manner in which the property of Lord Portsmouth was si tuated. The estates were in the hands of trustees ; over these trusts the Lord Chancellor exercised no jurisdiction; subject to them he thus dealt with the estates: He had provided first for the maintenance of Lord Portsmouth ; secondly, for Lady Portsmouth and her infant child ; thirdly, fur the costs of the commission of lunacy and the defence. as well as certain other costs; fourthly, for the debts incurred by Mr. Coombe for his Lordship's support ; lastly, fur the debts recovered from Mr. Newton Fellowes, on ac count of Lord Portsmouth. On the application for leave to apply any surplus of the property, after the aforegoing orders had been car ried into effect, to the payment of costs incurred by Lady Portsmouth in defence of the peseta suit, opposition had been made by Mr, Horne, on behalf of Lady Portsmouth and the creditors. The Lord Chancellor had said that he would make the order, but it must be understood as operating only upon the surplus expectant funds, if such order was approved by this Court. He (Dr. Luthington), therefore, prayed the Court's opinion. The amount of the cost* now applied for was 681. ; and he wished for this op portunity of stating that there had been a grievous Inistspreeen tation in the Court of Chancery on this subject, and he was at a loss to conceive how it had arisen—a representation which, on the face of it, was manifestly •false and unfounded. Mr. Horns was represented to have said, that in this suit there was an array of doctor" and proctors, and that the costs in this Court would amount to 50,0001. Now, although this was a calm , w hi c h affected persons of high rank and large property, there were only one proctor and two counsel on each side. It was an evident absurdity to suppose that costa to that amount could be incur red, were the case to last ever so long. There had been no suit hi this Court hi which the coats had amounted to one-tenth of the sum. After the sentence had been pronounced, • Dr. Jt14)1 . 4k was not disposed to recede from the motion he had made on a former occasion, either that 4 monition of con tempt should issue against the Committee, for non-paym ent of costs, or that the proceedings should be suspended until the costs were paid. lie agreed with Dr. Lushington in pretesting against the misreprese n t a ti on i n t h e Court o f Ch a n cery , respecting the array of Do c t ors an d P roctors i n t hi s sui t. Th e reason why the application to th e L or d Chancel l or , that the surpl us f un d s should he applicable to the costs, was oppOled by the creditors and Lady it Portsmouth, was ev id ent. As t h e L o rd Chancellor himself ex- It hey they preferred ready money to wh a t W 34 merely in prospect." , it had been said that Lady Portsmouth should ac cept the lien on the estate offered by the Lord Chantithir ; but his Lordship said that Mr. Fellowes might take the lien. Lady Portsmouth was entitled by the rules of this Court to have her costs payed, and Arndt, provided for the examination of witnesses. lie (D . r. Jen ner ) hid no alternat i ve , but to pray the Court to en force its order, or to suspen d t h e proceedings. Sir C. ROUINIION saitl that this was a case of peculiar circum stances and very great importance, and he was unwilling to talcs the responsibili ty o f stopp i ng i t by adopting either alternative.-- The Defendant was not debarred from re-stumbling witnesses, it nagosarY ttud if the nit went went uu imperfectlyi it was not j-• ! ;,.' ~ '4.;;... *0 , ...• her fault. N , could be done prejudicial to her. He mutt refuse the trio COURT OF COMAION PLEAS, JUNI RS SULLIVAN V. BIXHOP. This was an action for excessive distress. The Plaintiff was a weekly tenant to the Defendant, who gave him notice to quit; but the former held on, consequently the Defendant, considering himself entitled to double rent, made a demand of 15s. being the amount. The Plaintiff made a tender of 10s. the old rent. This was not accepted : but the landlord distrained a table, valued at tbs. and kept it to himself, as a pledge for the double rent. The plaintiff's case was conducted by Mr. Sergeant VA MIA N, and that of the defendant by Mr. Sergeant WILDE. The Cuter Jusrlcr in charging the jury said, that it bad been ruled by Lord Ellenborough, that weekly tenants did not come under the statute which enabled landlords to recover double rent in case of a tenant holding out after notice to quit ; and as the de fendant had been offered the old rent, he was not justified in dis training ; he also acted wrong in not telling the distress within a reasonable time. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff—Datuagee is. costs 40s. CONSISTORY COURT, Jilta 2S. WINNINGTON AGAINST VVINNINGTON. This was a suit for a divorce, by reason of adultery, brought by Henrietta Antonia Winnington, against John Miles Winnington, sometimes called Sir John Miles Winnington. The parties were married in August, 1820, and cohabited till April, 1821, when Mrs. Winnington left her husband at Paris. In 1823, it was alleged that the defendant committed adultery with Dame Sarah Brisco (wife of Sir Waste] Brisco, Bart.), at which period he passed as Mr. Remington. Additional acts of adultery were also alleged as committed with other persons. The Cover proubunced sentence as prayed. The defendant addressed the Court in person, stating the em barrassments he had been involved in, and the hardships be had sustained, in not being enabled to defend himself in forma pauperis. Dr. Leg requested to address the Court on behalf of Sir John Winnington. He spoke of the injustice he had sustained, as a British subject, in being denied the privilege of defending himself in forme pauperis, which was occasioned by the Court itself. Dr. LUSIUNGTON said, that as the party bad been heard, the Learned Counsel must hold his tongue. Dr. Lax, however, continued : he observed to the Court, " You, Sir, ought to have been here, as Judge, on that occasion, when you were in another Court as Counsel, where there were larger fees to he got." He at length became silent. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. 110 W-STREET.—Yesterday Mrs. Edwards and the Lady's maid, Betsey Jones, were brought up for re-examination. There were several persons present, who had to complain of having been swindled by the prisoners; but it appeared, upon hearing their respective statements, that they had given credit incautiously, and that whatever moral guilt there might be in Mrs. Edwards' mode of obtaining their goods, there was no case (except Mr. Harris's) which the law would lay hold of. Whilst Mr. }Lurie was giving his evidence, Mrs. Edwards' rage was almost ungovernable. She reddened and bit her lips, and heaped the most unqualified abuse upon the witness. " What !" exclaimed she, " you want to make me a thief, do you? I never was a thief, and never will be, and I won't be made one by you, you villain, that I won't." " Never mind,:" said Betsey Jones, with the greatness coolness, " they can't make you a thief." The prisoners were fully committed to Newgate fur trial fur stealing the spoon, and were removed from the bar, Mrs. Ed wards cursing and reviling the prosecutor with all her might. WORSHIP-STREET---Buaata PIN AND Rosaaay.---Yes terday, a young man named Joseph Lawlor, war brought before Mr. Bennet, charged with the commission of a robbery, under cir cumstances of extraordinary daring, in the house of a labouring man named Charles Gray. The prosecutor and his family, consisting of a wife and four children, occupy a small house, No. 2, John's -court, Old-street road ; and it appeared that on Thursday night the prisoner climbed to the window of an upper room, where the whole of the family were in bed, and having entered without being discovered, went down stairs, where he packed a quantity of wet linen into a child's cradle, and left it under a window which he had opened, convenient ly for carrying off. He then returned up stairs, and proceeded to ransack the bed-room, and had emptied a box containing the greater part of the children's wearing apparel, when some noise which he made, supposed by turning the box upside down, awoke Mrs. Gray, and she observing something black on the floor, awoke her husband, and whispered to him that a strange person was in the room. He would nut believe it. He said it was impossible, and what she had observed was merely his clothes lying in the room. Mrs. Gray, however, to satisfy herself, put her hand out of bed and caught hold of the flap of the prisoner's coat. Gray instantly jumped out of bed, and seized the prisoner, who at first affected intoxication, but afterwards explained thut it was all a mistake. He begged pardon for the unseasonable intrusion, but he had intended to shelter, himself in the house of his sister, Mrs. Brown, instead of which he had unfortunately entered the prose cutor'''. He was fully committed to Newgate for trial. I 0 N-I AL. -STABBING.----Yesterday, a young man named Edward Edwards, was charged with stabbing li. Pople, one of the officers belonging to that establishment. Nile was on duty no Thursday night:, at the lire which happened at Mr. Curling's factory, in Bermondsey, when he felt a hand in his coat pocket, and on turning round, saw the prisoner, whom he suspected ; he struck him, and desired he would go on about his business. The prisoner, on receiving the blow, rushed at the officer with a knife, and cut his hand, and nearly severed four of the fingers. Pople then endeavoured to apprehend the prisoner, but the rascal rushed at him with the knife, and attempted to stab him in the lower part of the belly ; but the blade of the knife, which was a clasp one, - fortunately ripped up his trowsers and drawers, only inflicting a scratch along the flab. The offi cer therefore seized the prisoner by the collar ; but the prisoner kicked him violently in the groin, and was making his escape, when Pople drew his cutlass, and struck him with the weapon across the wrist, which divided some of the arteries. He went to a chemist's shop in the neighbourhood, and had the wound dressed, but he was shortly afterwards apprehended with the bloody knife in his possession. He was some time ago punished fortatabbing a watchman. lie made no - defence, and was com mitted fur trial. HONDURAS COMPANY. Yesterday a meeting of the Shareholders of thie Compa n y was 11011 at Batson', Coffee House, Cornbill. WILLtAII 04.kb:4 Esti. having been called to the Chair, ex plained the object of the meeting. The Trustee' he said, having disregarded the proceedings of their former !fleeting, and expressed a determination to resist the claims of the Shareholders, it became necessary to consider what further measures should be adopted, in order to enforce compliance with their just demands. lie went over the whole of the proceedings, which are already known to the public. - A Gentleman took blame to himself, as the original projector of the Company. He was misled by the statements contained in the work of Mr. Bryan Edwards. He then entered into a pallia tion of the Directors' conduct, which was well received, he recom mended an adjustment of differences by an impartial arbitration. --This Gentleman was followed by several other Shareholders. might have an Opportunity o f It appe are d t o b e t h e general feeling that an adjournment ought to take pl ace , t h at t h e Chairman conferring with t h e T rustees, and settling the po i nt i n dispute by arbitration. The Alceting accordingly adjourned to Thursday, 19th inst. GRAND Row ING MA TC4l.—On Thursday the fol lowing watertnen started to row for a boat given by Mr. Kean, the Tragedian, being the third given by that Gentleman, as en. eouragement to that useful body of men : Jae. Braithw a it e an d T. Vokens, Ilungerford—Green. J. Wild, Lambeth, and 0. Sallaway, Vauxhall —Purple. J. (add, Lamb e th, and Wm. Parry, Hungerford--Searlet. Wm. Meackliff, Baukside, and J. Parish, Hun ger ford--Light Blue. pin J k .. Castles, Waterloo Bridge, and S. Richard s , Lambeth— Green L.R ta r ing da, th L e atu le t i fr ol eili, ti a i n t dthlety. r e o r w o m ker r , ol V m a d ux is ha b il o — at Y n e w lli r w e . d off c([:hboteritvtietaaign:fipait:kpaecinkosnerci,ocridr,eenand 'line third. J. C ob b, oh putn no ey, tre att re d e :. aßardillbt,acLak Lam b et h - -: e l t i l ite t . iouve, where They started from Wes tminster flridge shout half.pas t four, e three soon after started for the second heat, Blue etaLGoakrnTweitneihnied s o for a short time, Iv last. On their return, they c hanged oars, shot a-head and reached the goal (the Red House) first, when they jumped err board the prize (the United Stutes), hen Pink's men dexterously and hauled his' on °bore' at Lambeth Stairs, amid the &edam', tions of the spectators. Tuy Wine followed by Blue, apd Green los lift astern, INQUEST ON ALDERMAN COX. On Thursday evening an inquisition was held before J. U. UN wtN, Esq. one of the Coroners for Middlesex, assisted bj a most respectable Jury, summoned for the purpose, at the Museum Tavern, Museum -street, Bloomsbury, on view of the remains of Robert Albion Cox, Esq. late one of the Aldermen of the City of London. _ _ After the tunal formulae were gone through, and the Jury empanelled, they proceeded to the residence of Mr. Cal, he Hart-street, to view the body. It lay on a bed in one of the upper apartments, and was much swollen. On their return to the inquest room, the following was the evidence adduced fur their consideration Ann Jane Watts examined--I Nits servant to the late Alder man Cox. On Tuesday last, my master returned home from Westminster between four and five o'clock ; shortly after his ra turn, I beard my mistress ask him if he had a palpitation of the heart ; he replied that be had not ; in a few minutes afterwards, being in the next room, 1 heard a groan, and after that a loud scream from my mistress; I immediately ran into the room, and found her supporting the deceased. Medical assistance was at once sent for, and Mr. Ireland was shortly in attendance ; my Iniet' l died soon after his arrival. Mr. Charles George Ireland examined.—l sin a surgeon, aid reside at No. SS. Hart-street, Bloomsbury. On Tuesday last, at a quarter before five o'clock, I was sent for to attend the deceased ; on reaching his house I found him lying on the bid in an ap parently dying state ; he exhibited strong symptoms of apoplexy ; I remained with him for a quarter of an hour, during which time I bled him in the neck and arm, and about six ounces of blood followed the incision ; he died in about five minute after the operation ; I made no dissection of the body, neither did I open the head or stomach, the cause of death being sufficiently apparent ; I have no suspicion of any thing injurious being taken inwardly, and am of opinion that the deceased died a natural death. I am not in the habit of attending him, and he appeared to me to ha about sixty years of age. The evidence closed here, awl in summing up, the Coroner re marked, that the cause of death was so clear and so satisfac torily accounted for by Mr. Ireland, that he saw no.occasiou to call any further witnesses. The Jury coincided in his opinion, and at once returned a verdict--" Died by the visitation of God.' CURIOUS FACT.--A few days ago, while some workmen were employed at Mouswald Mauls, in clear• ing an obstructed vent of a peculiar construction, the following discoveries were successively made :—First, three jackdaw nests recently evacuated ; secondly, a powerful swarm of bees, in full operation ; and thirdly and lastly, a most sagacious-looking owl, which ap peared very much surprised at so unexpected an intru sion upon his premises, where he had, no doubt, reigned president of the above anomalous society from the period of its first institution.—Dumfries Courier. . THE MARKETS. (From the London New Price Current of Friday.) Comor-The East India Company's sale this day was only thialkattended ; the Bengali, which were of ordinary quality, were-arbought in at 4/d. ; for the Surat' there was an export demand, about two-thirds sold, rather below the prices obtained by private contract. The sales by private contract this week con list of 430 Bengal, tied. a 5 cl. ; 160 Surat, 4d. a sd. ; 40 Boweds, 6d. The 103 bags Boweds by public sale to-day, for which 7d. was offered, are held for lid. ; they are good fair Cottons. The accounts from Liverpool, Manchester, &c. are very unfavourable ; the markets are exceedingly heavy and lower. Suaaa-Notwithstanding the extensive public sales of Sugar brought forward, yet the business done in Muscovades by private contract has been considerable during the first part of the week ; yesterday and to-day, however, there appears a heaviness about the market, but the holders are firm, and will submit to ao re duction in the currency. As the time approaches for the reduc tion in the bounty oh Refined Sugars, the shippers become more eager to complete their orders, which are reported to be exten sive. There is a very brisk trade for Lumps and Loaves at the previous prices ; nearly all the stock in London has been taken off, and the goods as they are brought from the refineries find su immediate sale • Lumps, 795. crushed in great request. b the goods suitable f or f the home-consumption of the country there is also more doing, and the prospect of a revival of trade. Me" Lowe have advanced to 24.. 6d. and contracts inauletfor next wok at this price; Molasses are therefore brisk at 24e. 6d. Havau nab Sugars by public sale, white at 365. a Cis. 6d. • yellow at 30s. a 31s. 6d. By p u bli c sa l e t hi s f orenoon, 80 Cas ks middling White Siam Sugars, 281. ; 450 bags middling White Bengal, 31s. a 33e. much about the previous prices; 46 chest' Pernam buco Sugar also sold, ordinary to good White, 335. 6d. to 36e• Comm.-The public sales of Coffee this week have gone off heavily, and a great proportion of the quantity brought forward has been taken in, on account of the few, buyers that cam for ward ; there was no alteration in the currency. This forenoon the Coffee market appears to be greatly affected by the accounts from Holland that the Netherland Company have declared nearly 80,000 bags Coffe e fo r sale: on the 19th proximo, at Antwerp. 19,000 bags ; anti a t R otter d am , 9t h August , 11,000 bags. The public sales to-day co n s i s t o f 1 56 cas k s an d b ags B r itish Planta tion, and 606 b ags F ore i gn ; the former k ohl at the previous prices, goo d or di nary .l ema i ca Ms. a 54-s., fine ordinary 56 .. ; the few lots D om i n i ca an d Demerara a l so su pported prices; the Foreig n so ld l ower , B raz i l good ord i nary 47 5 . a 47 5 . tid., pale good or di nary S t . D om i ngo 47e. 6d. TALLOW and I-U lm -Th ere i s little alterat i on i n t h e mar ket. Tallow 32,. 6d. H emp 401. SILIC.-Tbe Silk sale at the India House has closed : I gre at proportion of the Silk has been passed, on account of the few buyers ; the fine sold 1 per cent. higher. Sewn. -The quotations are nearly nominal, on account of th e few transactions l a t e ly re p orte d. By public sale yes terday whir Pepper (r a th er di sco l oure d) sold 2 e• 4d. a 2s. 6d. ; Came Lignea, 925. a 93a. SALTrITILY.-By public sale this forenoon, 4143 bar ("free tion will be allowed) sold 20s. and 20s. tid. RUM, BRAwn-, and Housuns.—The sale of a panel of Leeward Island Rum, S over at Is. 10d., appears to have had favourable effect on the market ; several buyers came immdi stel f forward, and they could not purchase at such reduced pried I parcel of 4 over has sold at Is. 11d., and Q to 3 over at the gaol price, per Imperi a l ga ll on ; - fine Jamaica R u m s are much inquir ed after, and the first arrivals will p ro b a bl y meet a rea d y sale? as,. stock of that quality in London ts completely exhausted. nrsn'e are heavy; the quotations are nearly nominal. In Geneva the re is no new feature. FAUlT.—There is no material alteration this week ; fi nt lentia Raisins, in boxes, meet a ready sale at 425. ; the ordina i? descriptions, of whi c h t h ere i s a considerable propo . rtion t market, are not so saleable, the stock o f t hi s description rather decreasing, ti ne red Smyrna and C ara b ourna R a i sins are ret'''' „ more inquired after. TOBA cco.— -1hal• The purchares o f T o b acco for e xport are 12 0 Kentirciy at 3-4(1., the oth er " a l e . are confiner' to small parcels i t hou w t five and ten WWI. at a ti me to t h e trade; The pricer are - variation. RUAIFORD MARKET. Went/mat, hue 21 .—Beit; from Bs. 10d. to 40. i td- 1 ; Mutton, Ss. Id. to 4e. 4d. ; Lamb, 4s. ed. to bc id* ; ‘ , 7 „: 41. Od. to ss. 2d. ; and Pork, 46. to 46. Bd. per stout. 7 0 ,. ling Calve*, from 14s. to 38s. ; and quarter old store pits , - to 146. each. Supply tolerably good, and trade dull. AL MARKET,:-Joti Collin d. gwood 0 I;ighton M00r... 27 0 Felling Main —.25 6 Beaton —.31 6 liebburn Main 31 6 Killintwort 0 lAddell's Mai h n-115 30 0 ortl's Redhugli 33 0 Pelaw an C I Ships at Market, a. d Pontop Simpson V 0 Pontop Windsor V 0 Shipoote 15 6 'Townley IMIYOWNIN.O. SS 3 Willington 30 9 Wylam 28 3 Walls End Rell's 31 0 W. E. Green's 19 0 W. X, Newrnarch 31 6 38 S---3ihpa sold, 711%. Wrr•••lkbai•••••••....- W. E. Nort h u mb,3 o 0 W. E Pruett' 12 W. E. Hicld•lt's W. E Rimers 34 0 Lambton small _.11,1 Culm Ilembrey Hartley Walls rod Hatton f 3 W. E. Lambton 16N• BIRTH. On Monday, in Gower -street, the lady of J. P. Burrow.' Eati., of a son. MARRD. On Thursday, a t St. Ci IE eorg Osborne, etw, Hanover-square, Saarille IJ' Pox I :s 4 i', to Lady Charlotte Leeds.daughter of the Duke ° On Thursday, at Eali ng , b y t h e R ev . J ames S m i t h, 11 ,14 ' Fellow of Brasenost College, Oxford, Charles Hutchinson, Fig" eldest son of the Rev. Benjamin Machina°, Vicar of Kirk nor' ton, Yorkshire, to Annette Matilda, daughter of the Rev. P r ' Nicholas, of Ealing, Middlesex. DIED. on Wednesday, the 21st k e g., Charlotte Frederica Diary,Ald. d (laughter of Sir Robert Wane, M.P. Aged 27. __— Printed 11141 Plagiaot by 3 4. YOUNG, isissSyn Otites. _ 140, 119 a Stregi. - ' i